' Impugned in this appeal is the order, dated 17-11-1999 passed by learned IVth Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi South in Rent Case No,424 of 1999 whereby the ejectment application filed by applicant is dismissed.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant is owner o f a godown constructed on Plot No, MR-5/8 and 3 Dispensary, Road Mithadar Chowk, Karachi. It is stated in the application that respondent is tenant at the monthly rate of rent Rs,76. Applicant had earlier filed Rent Case No,406 of 1989 in the Court of IInd Rent Controller, Karachi South which was subsequently withdrawn by him.
3. It is asserted that after the withdrawal of said case the respondent was supposed to pay the rent directly to the appellant and not in Court. The appellant has further asserted in ejectment application that he is 70 years old and he wants to establish his own business in the demised premises. He required the premises for his personal bona fide use in good faith.
4. The respondent filed his written reply wherein he has admitted the relationship and rate of rent.
He has stated that he offered the rent to appellant but on his refusal the rent was deposited in the Court and has not committed any default. The respondent has further contended that appellant owned so many shops and the premises in question were not required to him for his personal use.
He has stated that appellant has constructed a new building wherein the respondent was tenant but the appellant did not provide premises in the said building after same was completed. The respondent, therefore, filed separate Rent Case bearing No,270 of 1993 which is still pending.
5. Learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:
(1) Whether opponent has committed any default in payment of rent?
(2) Whether applicant requires the premises in good faith for his personal use?
(3) What should the order be?
6. Parties led their evidence and ultimately the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that neither any default was committed nor the premises in question were required to appellant for his personal bona fide use.
7. It is contended by Mr. S. Mukhtar Hussain Naqvi, learned counsel for appellant that the impugned judgment is based on erroneous and misconceived assumption as the appellant had through notice upon respondent for paying him rent directly but he failed to pay to him and continued depositing the same in Court. According to him, the respondent has committed default as he failed to pay the rent directly to the appellant. It is contended that the appellant is 70 years of age and he wants to establish his own business in the premises. He does not own any other shop to run his business and demised premises are required to him for his personal use. Reliance is placed on Dr. Ghulam Rasool v. Muhammad Iddress Qureshi 1989 CLC 279 and Mrs. Ram Lal and 8 others v. Mst.
Nargis Khanum PLD 1996 Kar.
440.
8. Miss Salma Bano learned counsel for respondent has argued that no default has been committed by the respondent. The appellant does not receive rent and oftenly refused to receive it directly, therefore, the respondent started depositing the same in Court. The report was called from Nazir of the Court which was received on 22-2-2000 and the same reveals that the respondent is paying rent regularly which he has paid up to March 2001 and as such no default has been committed by the respondent. It is pleaded that the premises in question are not required to appellant for running his personal business. He is aged about 70 years and his two sons are residing abroad. It is stated that one of them is living in Dubai and other one is at Germany. It has come in evidence that the appellant owned other building and shops which he has rented out to some other tenants and the litigation in respect of the said shops are going on with those tenants.
Reliance is placed on Messrs Bata Pakistan Limited v. Begum Ashraf Burney 1993 M LD 697 and Muhammad Ahmed v. Mrs. Qamar Anwar Sheikh 1980 CLC 664.
9. The record reveals that respondent has deposited the rent in Court up to March, 2001. The report of Nazir is on record and the ground of default is decided on the basis of it So far the personal use of demised premises is concerned, the respondent admittedly owns other buildings and he has rented out the shops to other tenants. He himself is 70 years old and his sons are residing abroad as stated above.
10. The case law referred to by learned counsel for the appellant has no relevance to the facts and circumstances of instant case.
11. In this view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity or misreading in the rent order, therefore, this F.R.A. Merits no consideration and is dismissed in limine.